Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 50
  1.    #1  
    I think this topic deserves its own thread.


    The key criteria by which Presidents are judged is whether the nation is better or worse off for them having had that job.

    By a seemingly bottomless pisspool list of mistakes, miscalculations, ignorance, greed, dishonesty -- junior's tenure has been a catastrophe for america.

    Never in its history has a President left office with it weaker and poorer relative to the rest of the world -- until junior.

    Never has there been a president who has more deliberately violated the constitution than junior.

    Never has there been a president who has done more to weaken the nation's military, done less to protect the nation's and planet's environment, done less to anticipate and proactively deal with the future, than junior.

    Never has a president done more to weaken our alliances with allies, and unnecessarily provoked potential friends (like Russia) than junior.

    His singular achievement that no other president would have done in his circumstance ??? Cutting the taxes on the rich, ballooning the budget and trade deficits, and planting many of the seeds to the gravest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

    The primary measure of america's economic power has been the strength of the Dollar. It reflects how others judge our wealth, our power, and our economic vitality. junior has presided over the humiliating wholesale devaluation in the value of the dollar -- a devaluation that reflects how the world regards america.

    His ignorance led to dumping of american wealth and blood into the sands of Iraq, to the abandoning of the Gulf coast and New Orleans to Katrina, to millions of homes being lost to foreclosure and the consequent economic devastation of their neighborhoods and the nation.

    junior kept MPG standards low, while funding pie in the sky hydrogen...

    But lets not forget for a moment his one scientific and environmental success: ethanol.

    The wholesale adoption of this energy wasting corn conversion boondoggle, is devastating people both in america and the world.

    Everywhere crops that had formerly been used for humans, are instead being turned into fuel -- in a market fed by $120 a barrel oil.

    From Haiti to the Philippines to Africa -- people are starving and rioting because of junior's farsighted program.

    Maybe I'm wrong -- maybe as DL Cummings has written, when all the history books are written junior will be thought of as better than Warren Harding:

    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    I suggest people (particularly those intent on seeing Bush as the worst) read the following article:

    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts.../20010511.html

    Here are some notable excerpts (in italics):

    "Not only is ranking the presidents a game, it is one without any real rules."

    Now, about those rankings of Bush . . . you know where I am so delusional to cite the highest, lowest and greatest difference as mere fickleness . . .

    "Those ranked as failures are constantly changing their positions, both up and down."

    "Meanwhile, everyone's long-time worst president, Warren G. Harding is anything but a role model for failure.
    Indeed, at the time of his death in office, he was widely respected and greatly loved."

    WHAT? He was "immensely popular" in office, yet managed to become one of the least successful presidents.

    So. What reasonable stock then shall we put in the approval ratings of Bush then while still in office? History shows that approval ratings don't tell the final story and that same "final" story isn't always so final.

    Or as Hobbes has said:


    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post

    ...I do have beef to pick with Bush as I have freely shared several times over in this forum I think he has utterly failed in homeland security issues, i.e. mainly Illegal Immigration and Border Security. Going into Iraq had nearly unanimous support at the time from the Rep and nearly every notable ranking Dem, including Bill and Hillary. The voting record and Senate and Congressional Speeches on record show the wide spread support at the time. We had no confirmation about Iran's Secret Nuke program until months after Iraq invasion. So that is not an issue with me. But the management after the initial goals in Iraq raise several well deserved and earned concerns. ...

    According to several historians, Bush is certainly in the lower tiers of the rankings with all the Presidents in history. But most of the studies I have seen on this say that this cannot be finalized until years after for two reasons. First is that current events are always fresh in mind. Historically Pres approval ratings will improve as years goes by and new issues become current. And second it the full impact of their actions is not able to be realized often times until years later, i.e. in 15 or 50 years is the Middle East better or worse then with a democratic Iraq.

    In addition to the concerns I expressed above about Bush, here are some of my worst Presidents on my list:
    • James Buchanan who set the stage for the Civil War and handed Lincoln a country torn apart.
    • Warren G. Harding & Calvin Coolidge who had the most documented corrupt administrations in our history.
    • Herbert Hoover is certainly a candidate from the way he managing the economy prior the crash in the 20s that lead to the Great Depression.
    • I think Andrew Johnson for being a white racist that resisted every turn in allowing blacks to vote in a time following Lincoln and the Civil War when it could have changed the course and climate of our country's future.
    • Carter as on the most ineffective in recent history.
    • Nixon for the disgrace on our country for the situation that forced him to resign
    • I would not put Bill Clinton in the worst Pres list but I feel he had a major admin blunder that deserves to be on the list. I think that his slashing of our Military and Intel forces has lead to many of the challenges we face now with being able to react to all current and potential threats at a comfortable level of resources.

    BTW -- the orginal post that began this discussion:

    ...its a job not intended as either an internship for a neophyte -- or as a retirement berth for an old man who wants to recreate the policies that have brought us the greatest catastrophes in american history.

    Policies that included a domestic economy in ruins, jobs lost to asia, middle class home owners destitute and foreclosed on, abandoning a region to Katrina, the worst environmental polices, the worst energy policies, the worst foriegn policies, the worst national security policies, policies that allowed the dollar to crumble, the worst tax policies, the worst policies in regard to the constitution and civil liberties, the worst policies in terms of science, and education...
    Last edited by BARYE; 04/28/2008 at 02:09 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    Never has there been a president who has done more to weaken the nation's military,
    I agree with the rest of your post... no need to quote all of that....

    On the military, I'm not so sure... depends on how you look at it. For at least the next 20 years you will have troops, sailors, airmen, etc that have experience in combat.

    The military maybe a bit stretched right now, it has proven to be resilient.

    In addition, we are able to test new weapon systems and no telling what other "interesting toys" over there.

    We do have major problems though... not to discount what you said...
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  3. #3  
    [QUOTE=theog;1436067]I agree with the rest of your post... no need to quote all of that....QUOTE]

    First off, there IS a need to quote. Second, well, do you really agree with ALL of it (pre-edits)?
  4. #4  
    All of it really meaning from this point to the end...

    "Never has there been a president who has done more to weaken the nation's military,"
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    All of it really meaning from this point to the end...

    "Never has there been a president who has done more to weaken the nation's military,"
    Thanks for trolling my reply...

    You were so quick, that is why you have busted quotes....

    Learn how to

    quote.
    Ok, let me feed you now.... by "all of that" I meant the rest of his typing... before and after the military quote....

    And if you were paying attention, you would see that his last edit was at 05:08 PM... my reply was at 06:20 PM... any pre-edits mean nothing... I don' t know what he typed.... so I don't understand your point there... it makes NO sense.....

    Thanks for reading... but what do you think about the OPs post?
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Thanks for trolling my reply...

    You were so quick, that is why you have busted quotes....

    Learn how to



    Ok, let me feed you now.... by "all of that" I meant the rest of his typing... before and after the military quote....

    And if you were paying attention, you would see that his last edit was at 05:08 PM... my reply was at 06:20 PM... any pre-edits mean nothing... I don' t know what he typed.... so I don't understand your point there... it makes NO sense.....

    Thanks for reading... but what do you think about the OPs post?
    Troll?

    I think it's necessary to quote because you never know when he's edited for the last time, not that your post, at the time, quoted pre- or post-edits.

    As far as the OPs post, I agree with some of it, nowhere near all of it.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    Troll?
    Yea.

    I resorted to name-calling.... I'm so juvenile at times...

    I think it's necessary to quote because you never know when he's edited for the last time, not that your post, at the time, quoted pre- or post-edits.
    As I've shown, my comments were after his posts.... If he updates it, then I'll update my post. Thanks for your concern, I really appreciate it. I'm very happy to have you looking out for me.


    As far as the OPs post, I agree with some of it, nowhere near all of it.
    That should be your focus.... to get discussion going... so what points do you not agree with with? That might have been a good first post for you to start out with.

    You can't be one of those people who don't like the BARYE, are you? Or do you have a problem with someone agreeing to his entire post?

    ---Being serious for a second (honestly being serious) I don't understand your post.... that is why I'm messing with you... edit to clarify: well, I do understand it, but I don't understand why you are making such a big deal out of it. Seems to me like you would want to get on with the discussion at hand... lol---
    Last edited by theog; 04/27/2008 at 07:51 PM.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post

    ... do you really agree with ALL of it (pre-edits)?
    Mea Culpa ...

    before I say anything on topic -- I confess that the original post was made hastily.

    It was filled with typos, and was hard to understand.

    Subsequent edits clarified, reconstructed, and added to that original.

    So I understand what you're saying ...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  9. #9  
    How anyone can ignore the billions of dollars lost to to this administration's incompetence in Iraq, while defending its saving of money at the expense of children's health is beyond me.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    The key criteria by which Presidents are judged is whether the nation is better or worse off for them having had that job.
    I think by every measure, as a nation we are worse off. By the way, I’m still waiting for someone in the vice president thread to site some examples of successes for this administration. I truly would like to know. Where is Tony Snow (job) when you need him.

    Supporters will talk about all the crises situations he has had to deal with (many of them self inflicted), but other presidents dealt with their crises of the time and are looked upon as very successful. Lincoln and FDR come to mind. They not only rallied the nation but managed to govern effectively. Bush did the rallying part after 9/11, but he squandered his chance for greatness by those things Barye wrote about. Basically I think Bush’s world view sunk him, or I should say is sinking him. It prevents him from being pragmatic and dealing with reality. He and his vice president are ideologues. In theory this.....in theory that..... imperial president this stay the course that.

    Bush may move up and he may move down but I think it’s a safe bet that all the movement will be in the lower tier.
    It's kind of sad when you think about it. Especially sense at his age, he's going to have a lot of time to think about it.
    Last edited by Iago; 04/27/2008 at 09:48 PM.
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  11.    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    I agree with the rest of your post... no need to quote all of that....

    On the military, I'm not so sure... depends on how you look at it. For at least the next 20 years you will have troops, sailors, airmen, etc that have experience in combat.

    The military maybe a bit stretched right now, it has proven to be resilient.

    In addition, we are able to test new weapon systems and no telling what other "interesting toys" over there.

    We do have major problems though... not to discount what you said...
    We agree that it is invaluable to have officers with real combat (as opposed to text book) experience.

    The military reconstructed and lead by the veterans who returned from Vietnam was better than the one that experienced combat there.

    But the reservoir of potential of soldiers and officers is not endless -- and this war and the way it has been waged run the risk of exhausting that reservoir.

    Worn out from repeated deployments, morale sapped by stop-loss forced "re-enlistments" -- often the best officers and soldiers are not staying to make a career of the army.

    Pulverized by the stress of a counterinsurgency in a foreign land with a foreign culture, religion, and language -- they are experiencing Post Traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to an unprecedented degree.

    Instead of having focused the military's resources in war in Afghanistan, junior diverted most of it to Iraq.

    Instead of being able to rebuild Afghanistan, a people who were pleading for help -- money has been wasted in Iraq to an unimaginable degree.

    instead leveraging the support and soldiers of NATO and the very real coalition of friends we have in Afghanistan -- we've used them to cover the gaps left by our deployments to Iraq. We’ve criticized and belittled their contributions -- alienating instead of thanking them.

    Intelligence assets -- desperately needed in Afghanistan, have instead gone to Iraq.

    Stretched to recruit, the army in desperation has continued to lower standards, and issues more and more waivers for criminal conduct -- even felonies.

    Even if the U.S. HAD to fight Iran or N. Korea, or BARYE -- it would not have the ability to do so.

    Its an army which has shot its wad in Iraq.

    Its tanks, Bradleys, and Humvees are worn out. The state National Guard forces have sent almost all their equipment there -- and the army can barely equip training battalions with decent gear.

    This army was never intended or designed to be used as it has been in Iraq.

    It will take leaving Iraq, billions and billions of dollars, and at least 5 years -- to recover from junior's devastation of the military.


    Army and Marine Corps Grant More Felony Waivers
    By LIZETTE ALVAREZ NY TIMES
    April 22, 2008


    Strained by the demands of a long war, the Army and the Marine Corps recruited significantly more felons into their ranks in 2007 than in 2006, including people convicted of armed robbery, arson and burglary, according to data released Monday by a House committee.

    The number of waivers issued to active-duty Army recruits with felony convictions jumped to 511 in 2007, from 249 in 2006. Marine recruits with felony convictions rose to 350 from 208.
    Over all, the numbers represent less than 1 percent of the 115,000 new enlistments last year in the active-duty Army and Marine Corps.

    Coupled with sharp increases in the number of waivers for misdemeanors, the trend raises questions about the military's ability to attract quality recruits at a time when it is trying to increase enlistment. The Army, which has suffered the most war casualties and the longest deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, faces an especially difficult challenge in attracting qualified men and women.

    From Sept. 30, 2006, to Sept. 30, 2007, the Army granted so-called conduct waivers for felonies and misdemeanors to 18 percent of its new recruits...
    Last edited by BARYE; 04/28/2008 at 11:59 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  12. fishera's Avatar
    Posts
    494 Posts
    Global Posts
    495 Global Posts
    #12  
    I would say the worst president in modern history would have to be Reagan because of his economic policies. I mean really... anytime you get an entire term named after you can not be a good thing .

    plus... it has set us up for every international and economic issue we are having today.
    Aaron M. Fisher
    CEO of Sonicfish Consulting
    www.SonicfishConsulting.com

    PDA/ Smartphones:
    Handspring Visor> Sony Clie SL10> Nokia N-Gage> Nokia 3300b> Treo 600> Treo 650> Treo 680> Nokia e71> Apple iPhone 3G> Palm Pre+
  13.    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by fishera View Post
    I would say the worst president in modern history would have to be Reagan because of his economic policies....
    plus... it has set us up for every international and economic issue we are having today.
    yes -- Raygun was awful. Beyond awful.

    Suicide terrorism toward america began with him. The crushing of unions and the exporting of jobs began with him. Star Wars. The reactionization of the courts...

    But junior is unique. Sui generis.

    Raygun's economic poliices damaged america's economy, his middle east and latin american policies were catastrophic, and his effect on ending the cold war is grossly exaggerated.

    But when he left office the nation was not as visibly poorer and weaker than when he became President -- unlike junior.

    And though he himself was an incompetent phoney just like junior -- at least Raygun had some decently intelligent people around him (Shultz, Baker, Greenspan) unlike junior ...

    That's why I continue to argue that OT's Crown for WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY -- be awarded to junior !!
    Last edited by BARYE; 04/29/2008 at 12:40 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by electronique View Post
    How anyone can ignore the billions of dollars lost to to this administration's incompetence in Iraq, while defending its saving of money at the expense of children's health is beyond me.
    [sighs]

    Did you not read the articles that you yourself posted?

    Your MSNBC article cites 10 billion dollars; however, your Time Magazine article notes the following:

    "The bill Bush vetoed would have increased federal funding for SCHIP by $35 billion over five years, to add an estimated 4 million people to the program that provides insurance coverage for children from families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance. The joint federal-state program currently provides benefits to roughly 6 million people, mostly children."

    If my math here is wrong, someone let me know . . . 35 is more than three times 10.

    Additionally, according to Wikipedia:

    "The bill called for a budget increase for five years totaling $35 billion, increasing total SCHIP spending to $60 billion for the five-year period."


    Now, let's do some math here (according to just the excerpts I quoted):
    • 35B more for a grand total of 60B means we currently spend 25B.
    • The 35B more will go towards adding 4 million people to the currently 6 million. people
    STOP. We are spending 25B for 6 million people and need to increase our budget by 35B in order to add 4 million? WHAT?

    You seriously see no problem in this? Since this is a Treo forum, let's make a cell phone analogy:

    Pretend Palm spends 25 thousand dollars to have 6 million phones built. Now pretend they feel like sales are going up and decide to have 4 million more phones built. Their manufacturing company says, "That's gonna require an additional 35 thousand dollars."

    Who here advocates Palm to say yes? Better yet, who would advocate that Palm go from spending, $.004167 per phone to spending $.006 per phone--increasing the costs by 44% merely to add to an already existing cost (to make the point of not getting anything different but the same old thing)?

    I would say no one--at least no one who ever has any intentions of running a business that is.

    Why then does it make sense to suggest our government spend an additional 44% for the same product?


    Besides, the Time Magazine had this nugget in there too:

    "A major point of contention with the White House was Bush's demand that nearly all poor children eligible for the program be found and enrolled before any in slightly higher-income families could be covered. He originally proposed adding $5 billion to the program over five years but later said he was willing to go higher as long as his conditions were met."


    One last mention from the MSNBC article:

    "The three top auditors overseeing contract work in Iraq told a House committee of $10 billion in spending that was wasteful or poorly tracked. They pointed to numerous instances in which Defense and State department officials condoned or otherwise allowed poor accounting, repeated work delays, bloated expenses and payments for work shoddily or never done by U.S. contractors."

    THAT'S what we want to give our poor kids?
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    need to increase our budget by 35B in order to add 4 million? WHAT?

    You seriously see no problem in this?
    I see 4 million poor children without adequate health care as a major problem that will never be solved while the current administration is in office.

    I also see billions of dollars wasted in Iraq, through this administration's incompetence as a major problem that will repeat itself again unless those who are in charge of this war are replaced.

    The former is extremely poor priority the latter is gross incompetence but in addition to all that was already mentioned, both of these things each contribute their share to 'junior', as Barye calls him, being one of the worst presidents in the American history. Perhaps the worst, although I am willing to let historical perspective takes its course for a while before concluding that.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by electronique View Post
    I see 4 million poor children without adequate health care as a major problem that will never be solved while the current administration is in office.

    I also see billions of dollars wasted in Iraq, through this administration's incompetence as a major problem that will repeat itself again unless those who are in charge of this war are replaced.

    The former is extremely poor priority the latter is gross incompetence but in addition to all that was already mentioned, both of these things each contribute their share to 'junior', as Barye calls him, being one of the worst presidents in the American history. Perhaps the worst, although I am willing to let historical perspective takes its course for a while before concluding that.
    Wow. Four million children with no healthcare and that's the President's fault ehh?

    Guess it's much easier to point the finger at the government, blame a man or two (or hell, consider the whole administration) rather than take a look in the mirror and ask:

    Why are we waiting on one man to fix the problem when there are roughly 300 million people with plenty of freedom to do it on their own?


    [sighs]

    I'll never understand those who use the government as a crutch to help them sleep better at night.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  17. #17  
    This 2006 article shows why I find it hard to participate in discussions of this nature in general. Personal blind loyalties tied to aligned political party's talking points more often than not dominates the reasoning behind the Pros and the Cons of each side of the argument.

    (CBS) President Bush has been named as the worst president since the end of the World War II in a new national poll.

    Mr. Bush was chosen by 34 percent of the voters who participated in the the Quinnipiac University survey. Richard Nixon finished second with 17 percent -- just ahead of Bill Clinton with 16 percent.

    Ronald Reagan was the top choice as best president, with 28 percent. Finishing second was Mr. Clinton with 25 percent.

    The poll reflected deep partisan divisions. Mr. Bush was ranked worst by 56 percent of Democrats and 35 percent of independent voters but only 7 percent of Republicans.

    Reagan, on thew other hand, was named as the No. 1 president by 56 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of independent voters but only 7 percent of Democrats.

    "Kennedy and Truman get big Democratic votes, especially among baby boomers (45 - 64 years old) and seniors (over 65), but recent memory counts," said Maurice Carroll, director of Quinnipiac's Polling Institute.

    "Democrats say Clinton's the best and Republicans say he's the worst. Republicans don't think much of Jimmy Carter either. There's no contest for the GOP favorite: It's the Gipper," Carroll added.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1673345.shtml
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Wow. Four million children with no healthcare and that's the President's fault ehh?
    Ah ok, enough said about the loss of billions through incompetence in Iraq. Of course, I understand.
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Guess it's much easier to point the finger at the government, blame a man or two (or hell, consider the whole administration) rather than take a look in the mirror and ask:
    Why are we waiting on one man to fix the problem when there are roughly 300 million people with plenty of freedom to do it on their own?
    You're proposing leaving the children to fix it on their own? Because no one else is doing it.
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings;1436268[I
    [sighs][/I]

    I'll never understand those who use the government as a crutch to help them sleep better at night.
    Condescending sighs aside, its 4 million children who want to sleep better at night, not me. They will not get the chance for better health care unless someone takes the initiative, which neither you nor our president seems willing to do. Is it the money, or is it the concern for fixing the problem which is lacking here?
  19.    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    This 2006 article shows why I find it hard to participate in discussions of this nature in general. Personal blind loyalties tied to aligned political party's talking points more often than not dominates the reasoning behind the Pros and the Cons of each side of the argument.
    which is why I almost never make reference to polls.

    What they meassure is an emotional feeling. They are a tool to help politicians target their campaigns and their messages. (tools often distorted and abused by the media).

    I've itemized why junior deserves the crown -- why he beats even Raygun.

    You've proposed other candidates (and an educated list it is -- though you may want to add Taft -- the FATTEST Prez).

    I say junior is the worst based on the single criteria that most matters:

    Presidents are judged on whether the nation is better or worse off for them having had that job.
    Last edited by BARYE; 04/28/2008 at 11:56 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  20. #20  
    The no health care - I bet that includes illegal immigrants. This conversation is definitely one that is opinionated. No matter how you look at it, one side slams the other. Let's all just feel good.

    Ben
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions